Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in the proceedings Sir Charles Bagot, because he thought that the line could not be drawn parallel to all the sinuosities meant when he made this proposition not to propose the kind of coast they had been talking about, but an entirely different sort of coast, a coast that has been denominated a political coast, a coast which is used for jurisdictional purposes, and that this new meaning was thereby stamped upon the word coast simply growing out of the impossibilities, as they must have been present to his mind, of drawing the parallel to the entire coast of the shores and inlets?

And yet, that must be the conclusion. He either meant all the coast when he made the proposition, or he meant the British coast line that is now suggested or something substantially like it, and the only reason that can be shown why he attached this different meaning to it is the impossibility, as is asserted, of drawing a line parallel to all the coast which up to that time they had been treating about. Now, if he had intended such a coast as is claimed by Great Britain, would he have used the word "rivage"? The word "rivage" is used generally, as I understand it, to mean the shore of any waters. It is said it might apply to a river. It might apply to a lake, but has "rivage" ever yet been applied as a water boundary? It certainly can be a border to any kind of waters, but when you take the coast line indicated by Great Britain, why, then "rivage" extends across Lynn Canal, and it becomes not a border of water, but a water borderthat is to say, a border which is constituted of water alone. Still, it is said that that was the kind of coast that Sir Charles Bagot was speaking of. At what time in those proceedings did any such change come over their understanding in regard to the meaning that would be attached to this word "coast"? That he never intended to

get any waters north of that strip is shown by his reply to 742 the observations of the Russian Plenipotentiaries on his amended proposal. P. 163 of the United States' Case Appendix he says:-

Any argument founded on the consideration of the practical advantage of Russia could not fail to have the greatest weight, and the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty did not hesitate to give up, in consequence of this observation of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, the line of demarcation which he had first proposed, to wit, one passing along the middle of Chatham Straits as far as the northern extremity of Lynn Channel, and thence to Mount Elias, or to the intersection of the 140th degree of longitude, and to offer another which would secure to Russia not only a strip on the continent opposite the southernmost establishment which she possesses on the islands, but also the possessions of all the islands and waters in its vicinity, or which are situated between that establishment and the mainland (“terre ferme "); in short, possession of all that could in future be of any service, either to its stability or its prosperity. (Adjourned till to-morrow at 11 a. m.)

743

EIGHTEENTH DAY.-OCTOBER 7, 1908.

All the Members of the Tribunal were present.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. My Lord, before my friend, Mr. Dickinson, resumes there is a mistake in the transcript which I think I ought to call attention to; it will be corrected, but the point is one of some importance.

The PRESIDENT. Has it been revised yet, Mr. Attorney?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. It has not yet been printed in the revised form.

The PRESIDENT. What date?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. It is on the 21st September, at p. 18 of the unrevised copy, at the middle of the page. If your Lordship will kindly look at the paragraph it will make intelligible the observation I am about to make. Your Lordship sees the paragraph beginning:

I rather think it is somewhat below that; it certainly is at Berners Bay. I am told I am substantially right--it is below Berners Bay.

Now, there follows a sentence which is really unintelligible, but it rather suggests what I did not say:

There, at least, as I submit according to the better opinion, below that limit of territorial waters would begin.

What I said, as the context will show, was:—

There, at least, and as I submit according to the better opinion below that, the limit of territorial waters

The PRESIDENT. Thank you, it will be corrected in the revise, Mr. Attorney.

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. President, no one can be more sensible than I am of the great strain that I am putting upon the members of the Tribunal in going over passages in the negotiations with which they are more or less familiar. These passages, however, have not been read on behalf of the United States, and although they have been correctly read they have been commented upon from the standpoint of the opposing Counsel, and it is absolutely necessary if I seek to enforce the points of my argument at all to ask the attention of the Tribunal to the language of the passages. I will give you one assurance, and that is that I am very near through this part of my argument, and shall, in this way, not impose much longer upon the good nature of the Tribunal.

When we adjourned yesterday afternoon I had just read the passage from the reply of Sir Charles Bagot to the observation of the Russian Plenipotentiaries. This appears upon p. 163 of the Appendix to the American Case. I shall not read the passage again, but desire to call particular attention to what I regard as the emphatic words there throwing light upon his understanding of the meaning of the word "coast."

744

That is the proposition with which we are now dealing; that is, what will the Tribunal find to be the understanding attached to the word "coast" by the negotiators? That is the subject we are investigating, not what meaning we would give to it now, but what meaning they gave to it at that time when they delimited this territory. The emphatic words are in the third line, where he says that he gives up, in consequence of the observation of the Russian plenipotentiaries, the former line of demarcation that he had traced. This line ran along the middle of Chatham Straits. He gives up that and offers another. Now, what is brought about by this offer? He says that it secures to Russia not only a strip on the continent opposite the southernmost establishments which she possesses on the island, but the possession of all the islands and waters in its vicinity. I call attention to the fact that the French version uses the words "les eaux," so that there is no question there about the meaning to be attached to "parages, ," which arose on the former matter that we had under discussion. He distinctly proposes to give up something, and to give all of the islands and the waters in that vicinity and a strip on the continent.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. What vicinity is that, according to your view? Mr. DICKINSON. I beg your pardon?

Mr. AYLESWORTH. What vicinity does he refer to, according to your view of it?

Mr. DICKINSON. It is the vicinity east of Chatham Strait. That is the proposition that he referred to. He had proposed as a line of demarcation one passing along the middle of Chatham Strait, as far as the northern extremity of Lynn Canal. That gave to Great Britain the eastern shore of Lynn Canal and to Russia the western shore of Lynn Canal. Under that proposition Great Britain would have gotten the coast on the eastern side of Lynn Canal. Now, he says he gives that up, but he not only gives that up, but he gives a strip of coast on the land-it reads a strip of coast on the continent, something entirely inconsistent with the idea of a strip composed partly of land and partly of waters-and he gives up all of the waters lying north of Sumner Strait and to the east of Chatham Strait, which waters, under the former proposition, would have gone to Great Britain. Now, if he surrenders what Great Britain would have had under the former proposition, could it be possible that when he used the word coast " he intended to give a covert meaning to it by which he did not give up this coast on the east side of Lynn Canal, but meant a political coast or a jurisdictional coast when he said. coast," and that when he said he was giving up something, he was really getting back more coast than he said he was giving up? That would be the result of puttng the interpretaton of a general trend of the coast upon the word coast, and, instead of giving up the coast, which, under the former proposition, would have gone to Great Britain, he would have been getting by this new meaning, which is proposed to be attached to "coast," most of the coast on the east side of Lynn Canal. Now, I say that it cannot be possible to impute to him at that time any such interpretation of the word "coast." It would have been a flat contradiction of his observation upon the proposition that he then made. He would be getting, by this new meaning

66

[ocr errors]

attached to "coast," more than he said here expressly that he was giving up.

Take his explanation of his amended proposal in the letter to Mr. Canning, which appears on p. 155, United States' Appendix, the third paragraph. He said:-

You will observe that in making the proposal so modified, I, in fact, exceeded, in some degree, the strict letter of your instructions by assigning to Russia the islands lying between Admiralty Island to the north and Duke of York and Prince of Wales Islands to the south, but I entertained sanguine expectations that such a proposal, coupled with the concession of a line of coast extending 10 marine leagues into the interior of the continent, would have been considered as amply sufficient for all the legitimate objects which Russia could have in view, and quite as much as she could pretend to with any shadow of real claim or justice.

745

Could anyone say when he gave this explanation of his proposition and said that it meant coast extending into the interior a width of 10 marine leagues that he at that time meant by "coast" what is now contended by Great Britain to be the meaning applicable to that word "coast"? Would anyone say that a line drawn across Lynn Canal from headland to headland was in the interior of the continent? Still he explains that that was his proposition, that it was to be in the interior of the continent.

How can you reconcile such an interpretation as that with the explanation given by Sir Charles Bagot of his own propositions? It all turns now upon this new and modern application given to the term "coast," and is in direct antagonism with the explanation that he gives, and wholly irreconcilable with the interpretation that he put upon it. Can it be said that he intended to work out any such result at that time by the use of the word "coast," or by the use of the word "rivage," or by the use of "sinuosities"? And still, under this contention, he must have intended at that time, when he made that proposition, by "coast" the general coast, and not a coast extending to the interior, and meant by "coast a coast line that would cut across Lynn Canal and would give all the coasts that he had hitherto conceded to Russia to Great Britain.

[ocr errors]

If he had at that time in his mind any such meaning of the word coast as would work out the result now contended for, even if he had not explained it to Russia, would he not have explained it to Mr. Canning in writing to him and telling the effect of his proposition? If he read into the proposition the meaning now attached to that word coast," would he not, in writing to Mr. Canning, have told him what would be the result, and how it would work out?

66

Coming to his final proposition on pp. 163-164 (and that is shown on the United States' Atlas No. 4), the last paragraph at the bottom of the page, in reply to the observations of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, he says:—

66

It seems that a line drawn from the southern extremity of the strait called 'Duke of Clarence's Sound," through the middle of this strait to the middle of the strait which separates Prince of Wales and Duke of York Islands from all the islands lying north of those islands, thence toward the east through the middle of the same strait to the mainland, to be prolonged afterwards in the direction and manner already proposed by His Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiary as far as Mount Elias, or to the intersection of the 140th degree of longitude, would form a line of demarcation which would conciliate the mutual convenience of the two Parties.

He had himself understood up to that time what was the convenience that Russia intended to secure, and he said it would satisfactorily assure the reciprocal interests of both for the present and for the future. There was a reiteration of the former proposition so far as extending into the interior, and so far as giving a strip of coast after he got in 10 marine leagues from the coast and going parallel to its sinuosities were concerned.

Now, turning to the final position of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, at p. 164 they say:

That the possession of Prince of Wales Island without a slice (portion) of territory upon the coast situated in front of that island could be of no utility whatever to Russia.

That any establishment formed upon said island or upon the surrounding islands would find itself, as it were, flanked by the English establishments on the mainland, and completely at the inercy of these latter.

Can anyone say that at that time, when she was talking of protecting her establishments and using the expression "a slice of territory upon the coast," that she did not mean a slice of land, but a strip composed of slices of land and slices of water, and this when the object of protection was to secure her trade with the natives? Such a construction as that is wholly incompatible with the idea that Russia had in view, which idea was fully understood, as has been shown by the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain. The negotiation was broken off, but not on account of any controversy as to the meaning of the word "coast. There never was any controversy about that from beginning to end, but it was as to the delimitation of the coast upon the continent.

746

It it perfectly plain what Count Nesselrode at that time and at that stage of the negotiations understood "the coast" to mean. At p. 167 of the United States' Case Appendix he says:

By rights of first discovery, and by that which is still more real, the first establishment of habitations and human activity, our Cabinet demands possession both of the islands and the western coast of America from the furthest north to the 55th degree of latitude.

When he was making that demand and was using the word "coast and they were using the word "coast," is it conceivable that he understood when he received that proposition and made comments upon it that Great Britain at that time was attaching the meaning to the word coast that is now sought to be put upon it, and does not everyone know that, if it entered into his mind at that time that they were using the word "coast" as it is sought to be used now, that he would have entered a protest and that he would have seen that instead of getting all the coast and a strip of mainland, as it was expressed over and over again, he was getting a strip, partly of land and partly of water, and that he would never have carried out the Treaty with any such understanding as that?

There is still further evidence of his understanding to be found in his letter to Count Lieven, on the 5th April, 1824, in the United States' Appendix, pp. 172-73. He says:

The Ukase of the 4th (16th) September, 1821, carried the domains of Russia on the North-West Coast of the American Continent down to the 51st degree of north latitude.

He uses the expression "North-West Coast of the American Continent," referring exactly to the coast which had been referred to in

« AnteriorContinuar »